No, I don't agree. Sometimes we perceive opression, but the person within the culture views it as expression.

Scandalous - probably considered by prudes. Or folks who's idea of modesty is way different than that. It is just simplistic for me. Anyone can strip, so what point does it really make. Other than attract attention. There is no politics in bra burning anymore.

I think if we get outraged over pretty ladies decorating cars, we may just as well shut down the entire fashion industry and ration clothes in the form of ugly uniforms, somewhat my childhood. Chinese uniforms used to be ok. Practical.

You can protest against suggestive esthetics, bring any moral argument, it won't work. One can pretty well virtue signal, though. A revealingly dressed girl = must be abused. Outrage!

I did not buy flowers to my comrades artists today, they only got chocolates from us.

__________________
"L'homme ne peut pas remplacer son coeur avec sa tete, ni sa tete avec ses mains." J.H. Pestalozzi

“The only difference between a rut and a grave is a matter of depth.” S.P. Cadman

"Imagination is more important than knowledge." A. Einstein

Some mimosa for the chicks:



Tom

Yet it's something one gives to women - they appreciate flowers. Men don't because we're too serious for such things... So whether as part of courtship or not, it is ironically underlining what should apply to us based on our genders.
Yes and profound sexist at that. Given you didn't address my other point, we can take it that you didn't have any examples you could point to here of the day really being something for more than that middle-class Western demographic, after all.

Not sure if you are serious on this . "Men are too serious to appreciate flowers"? Just have a look back through history. Flowers have passed between men in Roman times, Aztecs and Celtic men also had some affinity for flowers. Their meanings ranged from peace, to luck in battle to good health.

This wooing thing with flowers is pretty recent.


As to the point of the day, I made that comment earlier in the thread. And the fact it's all turned into a hot topic on here kind of proves it, too.

If awareness was never brought to the forefront, nothing would ever change. Things do change. Maybe the women you speak of in the middle class western countries feel it first but gradually it begins to trickle down. Not just women's issues but general health, economy, education all started with people highlighting the problems.

I'm clearly being tongue in cheek, but the sexism does exist that flowers are a woman's interest and for men it would be seen as frivolous. Note I've said are, and that's because you can talk all you want about social attitudes in Aztec society, but they're pretty irrelevant to what we're discussing which is actual and not historical.
Proves what, that a bunch of largely educated, middle-class Westerners are debating it? It does seem to prove something alright, just probably not what you were hoping for.

And that's the problem with it; it's just a variation on the Walmart Mother's Day theme, catering to a privileged demographic and where posting some trite meme on Facebook about strong women counts as something. TBH, International Men's Day is no better, only less successful as men haven't got the hang of playing the victim quite as well - unless they're LBGT, of course.

This from a guy named after a Greek hero, debating the issue with a woman dressed as an Elizabethan queen, smoking a fag.

Say what you will, EF does have it's moments.

Elton John spends around GBP 250k per year on flowers

So Elton John is the man on the Clapham omnibus now? Or can we all find exceptions and pretend they're the norm if it suits our arguments? Why not, we're already trying to argue that because something was normal two thousand years ago, it must be so now? Logical fallacies for everyone!

Not necessarily true and very rigid. Men as seriousness though made me chuckle.

Naturally not necessarily true. Look at Elton John. Bias doesn't have to be 100% to be a bias.

But if you're going to try to argue that flowers are not seen overwhelmingly as an interest on one gender and not the other, then I commend you for arguing that with a straight face.

And I don't know why is that because men too can appreciate flowers, I know my OH does, my father too (all the plants my parents ever had, flowers included, were taken care by my father, I always believed his had some sort of gift for that). I think we are thought that offering flowers to men is not all right, not de rigueur. But this is something different than men not appreciating flowers.

I guess it just depends on your cultural background and your upbringing. To get so passionate that giving flowers to women is "profoundly sexist" and "men never do this because they are more serious" sounds, to me, faintly ridiculous. Maybe I was brought up differently to you.

Whereas buying flowers for a bloke is certainly unusual, it's not unheard of. Posters on here have even given personal examples of it earlier in the thread.

My personal feeling is that the idea of cut flowers is a waste and not terribly environmentally friendly but would never be so arrogant to label flower givers (male or female) as being wasteful earth-destroyers. Each to their own.

What do you think I am talking about, but sexual stereotypes? And how they're ironically used to promote a day that should be opposing them?

Sure. We should pay no attention to it. To me it sounds at best hypocritical. Sexual serotypes are bad, unless they suit you. Cherry pick. But if you're going to do that, then expect a lot of people who see this contradiction to take you less seriously.
OK, so if I supply some examples of women out-earning men, does that mean we can stop talking about the pay gap? This is the logic you're proposing, after all. A logical fallacy - the exception does not prove the rule.

This was what motivated me to ask Sandgrounder when the last time she bought flowers for a bloke was.

If it's not alright to stereotype women as "easily satisfied with a bit of dead biomass every now and then", then it's equally a problem to stereotype men as "uninterested in flowers" (or incapable of seriousness).

The stereotyping of women is two problems: The stereotyping, and the stereotyping of a specific group. If you can get at the former you can kill two birds with one stone, or bouquet, as the case may be.

It is a big thing indeed. :-)
I think there are political speeches too, politicians would never miss any opportunity to make themselves look better. Or a company's manager, a factory's director etc.

Mostly men buy flowers for women. We should buy more flowers for more men.
Mostly women earn less than men. We should see that more women have more equal pay.

Yep, I can live with that logic. Job done.

I've just caught up with the "posh white women" thing. No. All women: posh or not, white, brown, black, pink or green. All backgrounds, all levels of education and socio-economic realities.

It may be discussed more obviously, more publically, by women who, taken as a group from all the women in the world, are arguably in a more privileged position, but it does not mean the day and it's associated causes are the sole domain of this small, small group.

Odile and Sandgrounder, and Blueangel i think, all said similar things: change generally trickles down from a position of privilege and power. It rarely happens from the bottom up. The Suffrage movement was driven by privilege, yes, and women who had men in their lives who believed in them. Change was fought for, sacrificed for, by women but, ultimately, permitted by a historically patriarchal society. It doesn't lessen the achievement.

Have you seen Hidden Figures? Phenomenally talented, incredibly intelligent ground breaking women who still, still, needed a man to say "actually, I want her to do it, I believe in her, let her do it." And I know it's a film, bit taken from a biographical account and the main character is alive and was consulted. It's outrageously true. These women were warriors ever day. And the opposite of your stereotypical posh white women.

All women deserve a day. I'm a woman every day, a mum every day, but it's nice to have that one special day that universally recognises it.

As to the point about double standards: maybe, maybe not. I don't think it's a bad thing, in the long run. Historically there have been double standards for men forever. Still are. It's an uncomfortable truth but the world keeps turning.

Let Emma Watson wear a see through top. I'm sure she wears less on the beach. It doesn't diminish her intelligence, drive or talent. It shouldn't dilute the work she does for the causes she campaigns for. It's only a double standard if we let it be. Otherwise it's just a young woman in a white designer dress.